peak era or longevity?

[vvvslaxman]

Tendulkar's lack of gigantic knocks is one of the reason his peaks are not super peaks. He hasn't scored 500 runs in a single series yet. That shouldn't be the reason to put him down. For example Moyo 2005 7 tests 617 runs avge 51.41 2006 11 tests 1788 runs avge 99.33 2007 6 tests 368 runs avge 40.88 2009 7 test 566 runs avge 40.42 2010 4 tests 194 runs avge 24.25 Basically one gigantic year.which incidentally the best in history for a calendar year. Is he the better than Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Richards as he has better "peak" ? Highly questionable. Lara had certain attributes that Tendulkar was not blessed with. Tendulkar had certain attributes that Lara was not blessed with. But those were marginal, in the overall scheme of things those become negligible.Both are master run accumulators. They just did in a different way.

[CSK Fan]

There's only one thing more annoying than a Tendulkar supporter making the case for his greatness based on longevity' date=' and that's a Lara supporter emboldened by the same.[/quote'] The fact that no other cricketer has been able to perform so consistantly for so long is defnitely a point which needs to be made. If it bothers you, its because you dont understand why this feat is so amazing Secondly, people who consider Sachin great, all did it much before he achieved many records. So this longetivty factor is actually used more by Sachin's detractors than supporters. Records came during the lat period of his caeer and he had eastablished himself as a great much before.

[CSK Fan]

Tendulkar's lack of gigantic knocks is one of the reason his peaks are not super peaks. He hasn't scored 500 runs in a single series yet. That shouldn't be the reason to put him down. For example Moyo 2005 7 tests 617 runs avge 51.41 2006 11 tests 1788 runs avge 99.33 2007 6 tests 368 runs avge 40.88 2009 7 test 566 runs avge 40.42 2010 4 tests 194 runs avge 24.25 Basically one gigantic year.which incidentally the best in history for a calendar year. Is he the better than Tendulkar, Gavaskar, Richards as he has better "peak" ? Highly questionable. Lara had certain attributes that Tendulkar was not blessed with. Tendulkar had certain attributes that Lara was not blessed with. But those were marginal, in the overall scheme of things those become negligible.Both are master run accumulators. They just did in a different way.

I also feel, BCCI scrwed him at his peak by not having enough test series and not having enough tests in a series. He scored some 480 odd runs in a 2 match series once. By the time we started playing 4 match series, Sachin's form dipped a bit

[rkt.india]

You ask, how? My question will be why? Why bother? I criticize them to the point of not knowing cricket, but if cowlashing is cricket then so be it and I am out of here, as can be seen by the number of posts I've made about Modi than cricket. I love stats. They pay our daily bills,, my problem is about stats being taken out of context or more seriously, too seriously - pun intended. Stats cannot capture Tendulkar's back pain in '99 or Gavaskar's ordeal in '87. And to prove I am not biased, I have not seen a single stat which could capture the innings Gooch played at Headingly '92. You mentioned cover drives? But one of my favorite Tendulkar innings is in which he did not cover driver on his way to 241* - how do you capture that magnificence in stats? You ask how - if someone is interested watch the '02 test series and watch how Tendulkar and Dravid stood out. Not a great bowling attack by stat, but if you want to see what differentiates good from great that's an able start.

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics, in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.

[The Outsider]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] Well, then pragmatics can suck on it and hope for a Tendulkar and Lara to grace them.

[Chandan]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] For true fans, cricket is all about romance no? We watch cricket to watch good battle between bat and ball, good captaincy, good fielding and many such things, not good stats which can be accumulated on a flat surface against a minnow team without much resistance.

[CSK Fan]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] When experts of the game, past and current players, etc look at a player, they do not look at stats at all. They have a rough idea that this players averages so much, etc, but nothing beyond that If stats are the criteria most of the past players like Lara, Richards, etc wont be remembered today at all. If you think people like Mohandas or a fan on this site is who is going to take a call on which player is remembered as great then......

[rkt.india]

When experts of the game, past and current players, etc look at a player, they do not look at stats at all. They have a rough idea that this players averages so much, etc, but nothing beyond that If stats are the criteria most of the past players like Lara, Richards, etc wont be remembered today at all. If you think people like Mohandas or a fan on this site is who is going to take a call on which player is remembered as great then......

At the end of a career, a great player will certainly have great stats too. Isn't that a certainty?

[rkt.india]

For true fans' date=' cricket is all about romance no? We watch cricket to watch good battle between bat and ball, good captaincy, good fielding and many such things, not good stats which can be accumulated on a flat surface against a minnow team without much resistance.[/quote'] Yes. Agree with everything but what 50-60 years down the line for people who have not watched an SRT or a Lara. They might have their own contemporary great players but will they talk about SRT or Lara in the same vein as you and I can. No, they will most probably look at the stats like we look at the stats of Bradman or his contemporary greats though they will have more videos to watch and admire them than we have now of our past greats but people at that time too will argue similarly who is or was greater, these past greats or their contemporary greats and some will look at the videos and dismiss them like people do now about past, some will form opinion based on the videos, as we might have better tech on those days so people will right off the technology used today, then some will refer the cricket books and articles, and some will find anecdotes from ex-cricketers to justify their arguments. It will be an endless cycle like it is now. So, each to his own.

[goose]

The fact that no other cricketer has been able to perform so consistantly for so long is defnitely a point which needs to be made. If it bothers you, its because you dont understand why this feat is so amazing Secondly, people who consider Sachin great, all did it much before he achieved many records. So this longetivty factor is actually used more by Sachin's detractors than supporters. Records came during the lat period of his caeer and he had eastablished himself as a great much before.

You just made my point for me.

[Sachinism]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] Not true. Greatness is subjective. Most people became fans of players not their numbers. Most people have their own definitions of greatness. Someone once called Raina a great..

[The Outsider]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] What stats does Lara have? Richards have? Gavaskar have? They are nowhere close to the top run scorers, are nowhere close to the maximum number of centuries, their averages are barely above 50, don't have particularly large scores except Lara, but all three would easily make the top 10 batsmen list of most people. Even the one stat that Lara has - two triple hundreds is equaled by someone like Gayle.

[vvvslaxman]

This is all good for romantics but for pragmatics' date=' in the end, stats are what matters. In the end, stats are authorized stamp of a greatness of a player. People will not recognize or remember promise, but what someone has delivered. About 50 years down the line, people will again be comparing just stats of these guys like many do now for cricketers 50 years ago.[/quote'] Both Lara and Tendulkar have great stats. So it is pretty irrelevant when we compare them.

[CSK Fan]

You just made my point for me.

Nope, you just do not have any arguments or the capacity to argue so make one liners and ad hominem attacks.

[Vilander]

peak era = better individual all time ranking longevity = better ( performance,over a period ranking,production of similar players )for team

[Vilander]

but i think the question here is more who is better players who are primarily great for their stupendous logeivity at great levels (like Jayasurya in ODI,Sachin in tests) or players who are primarily great for their stupendous peaks but were fairly long-lived(Lara,Hayden,Laxman) or some who were both (Kallis,Dravid,Ponting). I think its an individuals impact vs an individuals impact in that case.

[Vilander]

Except of-course obvious freaks that come to mind - Sachin in ODI ( too long a period as best) and Don in tests (too big a peak) who were too good, there might be some other interesting such characters..freaks.

[goose]

Nope' date=' you just do not have any arguments or the capacity to argue so make one liners and ad hominem attacks.[/quote'] The point I was trying to make is that those who propound Tendulkar's longevity and statistics as the primary basis of his greatness do him a massive injustice. You also leave yourself open to attack by those not privileged to watch Tendulkar's career first-hand. When I saw Tendulkar bat as a teenager and later into his twenties, I wasn't wowed by his longevity or his statistics and never have been. Yes it is true he has nearly lasted 25 years at the top level but that is small beer really in comparison to what really made him special. He is better than any media headline or statistic. Speak to me about that palpable electricity of genius you sensed as he occupied the crease. Speak to me about how your jaw hit floor as his bat connected with ball. Greatness is all about how someone makes you feel. Greatness is not about giving the media scribes something quick and convenient to write about. Is an innings score of 400 really that more special than 300? Is 300 really that much better than 200? Speak to me about how a performance from the great man would for a few hours make you forget all of life's headaches. Speak to me about how he represented all your hopes and aspirations for team and for country.

[Number]

I don't know why people attach Sachin with longevity. He was in Don Bradman's all time XI when he was 25 years old.

[goose]

I don't know why people attach Sachin with longevity. He was in Don Bradman's all time XI when he was 25 years old.

Precisely this.